Breech of contract is not deliberate dishonesty used to trick people out of their property. It is simply failure to keep a promise. Fraud is a kind of theft, a predatory action. Breech of contract is just business. Made a bad deal? Too bad for you.

so how do you prevent a person from committing fraud and calling it innocent breach? or should we?

You cannot deny that making incarcerations profitable for someone will lead that someone to try to influence the government into incarcerating more people. Noted. You could have admitted that without stuffing your $#@! in my mouth.

Just like I can't deny that making imprisonment safer for society will lead society to pay for or ask for more prisoners. It all comes back to, people who benefit will want to get more benefit...

Statute were written by people, so ultimately something is illegal, by your definition, because somebody says so. Something you denied.

Link or it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Tpoints

Practicality doesn't matter to you? Sorry then!

Anyone can see who is making practical points and who is engaging in sophistry here.

Originally Posted by Tpoints

Ok, you have a point, people are punished differently if they intended to commit a crime vs accidentally harmed somebody. But lack of intent doesn't always mean you are completely off the hook.

Well, now. Debtors' prison, genius, does not make that differentiation. And regular prison does have room for those who commit fraud, if it can be proven (and, no, psychic evidence isn't evidence at all in this nation).

Originally Posted by Tpoints

Just like I can't deny that making imprisonment safer for society will lead society to pay for or ask for more prisoners. It all comes back to, people who benefit will want to get more benefit...

Well, now. You're not nearly as dense as you pretend to be.

Originally Posted by Tpoints

Is our current system that lets the debtor walk away with bankruptcy and forces the creditor to leave the debtor alone better? juster?

'Juster' is not a word, at least not in English. I wish you'd buy a dictionary already.

Better? As in, better than slavery? Yes. It is. Anything that involves slavery is in no way good, just, or justifiable. We're better off letting the whole lending system fail than re-institutionalizing slavery, imo. Not that this is an issue; even before they changed the laws and the people who filed for bankruptcy actually did come halfway close to walking away from their debts scot free (which is no longer true), the entire lending system didn't fail because of it.

Now who's not interested in practicalities?

Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 09:23 AM.

'It ain't what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we "know" that ain't so.'--Will Rogers

'I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.'--Molly Ivins

My prediction : people here will say because there's a system wide conspiracy to either bait stupid people into debt, or fraudulently force people into debt they'd never incur voluntarily. But hopefully people agree that if debts were voluntarily created, then prisons would be an appropriate punishment when debts can't be expected to be paid back (and bankruptcy discharging debts makes a mockery of responsibility)

Here is the reason an economist would give. Sometimes people with good intentions and a hard work ethic with every intent to pay back debt go bankrupt because they are unlucky.

Imagine 1000 people want to borrow 20k each to start a business. Maybe 50-100 will lose all the money and default. A few hundred will pay back the money but not have very successful businesses and eventually close. Another several hundred will run mildly successful businesses and produce value for the economy. Maybe one will become a publicly traded company, even the next Microsoft. Now imagine what would happen if those 1000 people didn't want to start a business for fear of debtors prison. We lose many successful small businesses and the possibility of a next major company as a result. Sure we also prevent some defaults, but the lenders understand the risk going in and we understand that people sometimes default even with the best intentions.

The statutes are not 'somebody', they are the stautes. And they're not statutes because just anyone said so, they're statutes because they got passed into law. In some places, that might be because 'somebody'--very specifically, a king--said so. But in this nation, laws become laws when they get passed, and they don't get passed by 'somebody', but by a whole room full of very specific people.

ok?

'It ain't what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we "know" that ain't so.'--Will Rogers

'I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.'--Molly Ivins

Here is the reason an economist would give. Sometimes people with good intentions and a hard work ethic with every intent to pay back debt go bankrupt because they are unlucky.

Imagine 1000 people want to borrow 20k each to start a business. Maybe 50-100 will lose all the money and default. A few hundred will pay back the money but not have very successful businesses and eventually close. Another several hundred will run mildly successful businesses and produce value for the economy. Maybe one will become a publicly traded company, even the next Microsoft. Now imagine what would happen if those 1000 people didn't want to start a business for fear of debtors prison. We lose many successful small businesses and the possibility of a next major company as a result. Sure we also prevent some defaults, but the lenders understand the risk going in and we understand that people sometimes default even with the best intentions.

if you're just saying we need a balance between too much fear of irresponsible loans and not enough, we agree.

My prediction : people here will say because there's a system wide conspiracy to either bait stupid people into debt, or fraudulently force people into debt they'd never incur voluntarily. But hopefully people agree that if debts were voluntarily created, then prisons would be an appropriate punishment when debts can't be expected to be paid back (and bankruptcy discharging debts makes a mockery of responsibility)

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

so how do you prevent a person from committing fraud and calling it innocent breach? or should we?

You prove up fraud with evidence, like any other crime. If you can prove that a person deliberately lied about some material fact in order to induce you to part with your propery for their benefit, and you actually did so rely, it's a fraud.

The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

TPoints, are you acutally arguing for "debtors prisons" or looking to make some other point using that as the way to arrive at your point?

I believe the point is to paint us as corporatists. Which is something corporations would be happy for either a troll or a useful idiot to do. But it isn't that easy, and the main reason it isn't that easy is because we're not corporatists.

Originally Posted by angelatc

It's because it's unconstitutional.

He already denied that. So, reality obviously cuts no ice with this one.

Originally Posted by Acala

You prove up fraud with evidence, like any other crime. If you can prove that a person deliberately lied about some material fact in order to induce you to part with your propery for their benefit, and you actually did so rely, it's a fraud.

And it doesn't require a debtors' prison to incarcerate someone for fraud. Another reality bite he seems intent on denying.

Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 09:38 AM.

'It ain't what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we "know" that ain't so.'--Will Rogers

'I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.'--Molly Ivins

Breech of contract is not deliberate dishonesty used to trick people out of their property. It is simply failure to keep a promise. Fraud is a kind of theft, a predatory action. Breech of contract is just business. Made a bad deal? Too bad for you.

The amount of investigation required to find mens rea (criminal intent) prior to a loan agreement would be too onerous (if possible at all) for the DAs office to even attempt. Where would the funds come from to saddle the criminal justice system with the additional role of debt collector? How much scratch are you willing to put out, Mr. Points, so BoA doesn't lose out? Wait...haven't we bailed out the banks enough?

Banks are still the Real Criminals, and we are still the Real Victims. Debtors Prisons throw the Victims in Prison.

1776 > 1984

The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

He already denied that. So, reality obviously cuts no ice with this one.

.

Must be a liberal.

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

Banks are still the Real Criminals, and we are still the Real Victims. Debtors Prisons throw the Victims in Prison.

Illinois has been skirting the issue. The creditor sues to get a judgement. Most creditors don't show up for the hearing, expecting to lose by default. The judge instead puts out a "Failure To Appear" warrant for their arrest. They end up in jail, and then they aren't released until they pay the court costs and the judgement.

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

If someone owes you money, you have the right to get that money back or equivalent property. Any judicial system, whether public or private, can handle that. What you don't have the right to is to enslave someone because they owe you money.

It makes no sense to put someone in prison. The punishment doesn't fit the crime at all. What does make sense is that their credit rating will be destroyed and they won't be able to borrow in the future. This already happens.

then prisons would be an appropriate punishment when debts can't be expected to be paid back

Why??
Prisons are expensive to build and staff and maintain.
The debt could not be paid by an inmate, in fact more would be spent on upkeep.

How could anyone think this was ever a good idea? (likely the reason they no longer exist)

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

If someone owes you money, you have the right to get that money back or equivalent property. Any judicial system, whether public or private, can handle that. What you don't have the right to is to enslave someone because they owe you money.

So you think that if we enter into an agreement where I agree to pay you fifty bucks for a concert ticket and I never show up because I got sick or lost my fifty bucks, that you should be able to use force to come and take fifty bucks from me?

The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

So you think that if we enter into an agreement where I agree to pay you fifty bucks for a concert ticket and I never show up because I got sick or lost my fifty bucks, that you should be able to use force to come and take fifty bucks from me?

If you didn't pick up the tickets then no, of course not. If you were sent the tickets with the agreement to pay for them, and then never did, then I can absolutely use force to get my money from you. I can't use force to take your car, or $100, but I can to get the $50 owed me.